The article says she approached him and was the agitator. Based upon the aftermath and all her shit talking, that certainly appears to line up.
Which could certainly be, but all of the linked content in this article and thread seem to lean a certain political direction. This makes it unclear exactly what happened.
The video in the article doesn't show what happened at all. It just describes it. The video in the Twitter post linked in the thread doesn't show what lead up to that. Someone recorded that video, so it is likely they were recording before that. It isn't guaranteed, but it is likely given shit had already popped off.
If she invaded his personal space and depending on her exact words, she is the attacker and he defended himself. There are also issues such as disparity of force and escalating force, but even then given what happened he likely won't even have to go to court of this.
If he invaded her space, that's a bit different. She can say what she wants to say as long as she doesn't create a likely threat. It is rude and shouldn't be allowed for a permitted event as I stated before, but it is a public space and the first amendment exists.
What happened before he swatted her phone out of her hand makes a big difference legally, and I haven't seen evidence of that. I've only since one side saying they were in the right. Sure eye witnesses count, but I assume there is video. Whichever side is in the right should post it.
But, yeah, I ultimately agree with you. It is typically the anti-protesters acting like the bigger group of fools. I'd just rather see evidence that likely exists.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
